On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 08:00:21PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2007-04-26 at 19:16 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > God, I hate it when people trim away the important parts. Aow you > > assume again your model of "review everything once again, we'll split > > off all bins by F10-F11", but I'm still in this year, and want Fedora > > to do something more then rereviewing all its specfiles several times > > a year. > > Ah, I see. > > So for the sake of sanity, I shall just pretend that when I asked for > clarification by quoting "punched install/remove holes?" when you > claimed they were "firmly embedded in the multilib design", your > response was as follows: No, that was not my response, not even close. > -> > 'punched install/remove holes'? > -> > -> No, I misspoke. Those, along with the 'rpm special handling' of which > -> I spoke, are not firmly embedded in the multilib design; they were > -> just another problem created by another bad short-term decision, as > -> you said. multilib design (TM) is the (un)art of splitting only the libdir for archs and performing ugly hacks to cross-overwriting techniques. As such the punchhole remove/install problem is an embedded issue of the multilib design (TM). The "David Woodhouse improved multilib design that requires bin suppackage splits for every bin carrying package" tries to circumvent this problem by spliting out the bin contents in subpackages. But this is another bad short-term decision, as it o forces us to revisit every bin carrying package out there speding tons of resources better used elsewhere o still does not allow us to simply have two disting repos for both arch, since we would have to filter out all bin subpackages o If we don't filter then we just pass the problem to all depsolvers, e.g. yum, smart, apt In comparison the bin64 solution costs us almost nothing: o most packages will rebuild in unattended mode o breakage of false bindir will be detected during the build itself o You can use two cleanly distinct repos with the depsolver tools of today, no need to add any funny support anywhere o You fix an FHS violation, in exchange for another, which just brings us bad to balance o The FHS has already considered this (thanks to the Debain folks) and is waiting for distros to actually utter the demand to include it. So for the sake of sanity, I shall just pretend that when you read this you will answer: > Yes, I'm convinced, I didn't realize all that, go for it. Yeah, I know, probably not even close :) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp63YeE6pdv7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
